I did my homework. "Mob attack" is not a thing under Oregon law and nothing in the self-defense laws make an exception for multiple assailants. I cited the law, you're pulling things out of your ass.3 on 1 qualifys as a mob attack. Do your own fuckin leg work noob. I'm not here to school I'm just here to point out how full of shit you are.Could you point out where the law states that there's an exception for 3 on 1? I didn't think you could.You better look again. It was 3 on 1.2015 ORS 161.219¹No it does not! The original attacker armed or not remains the attacker. No laws says you lose your right of self defense because you are armed. Try again!Escalation of violence (pulling a weapon on an unarmed person) nullifies a self-defense claim.
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1)Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2)Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3)Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
Hmm so if the other person isn't using deadly force, and you're not preventing a crime, you are not justified in using deadly force,